INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Leveraging Best Practices to 

Help Ensure Successful 

Major Acquisitions

Statement of David A. Powner, Director

Information Technology Management Issues

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

GAO-14-183T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-183T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

November 2013 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Leveraging Best Practices to Help Ensure Successful 

Major Acquisitions

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government reportedly 

plans to spend at least $82 billion on IT 

in fiscal year 2014. Given the scale of

such planned outlays and the criticality 

of many of these systems to the health, 

economy, and security of the nation, it 

is important that federal agencies 

successfully acquire these systems—

that is, ensure that the systems are 

acquired on time and within budget 

and that they deliver the expected 

benefits and functionality. 

However, GAO has previously reported 

and testified that federal IT projects too 

frequently incur cost overruns and 

schedule slippages while contributing 

little to mission-related outcomes. To 

help improve these efforts, OMB has 

launched several initiatives intended to 

improve the oversight and 

management of IT acquisitions. In 

addition, during the past several years 

GAO has issued multiple reports and 

testimonies on federal initiatives to 

acquire and improve the management 

of IT investments.

As discussed with committee staff, 

GAO is testifying today on IT best 

practices, with a focus on the results of 

its report issued on the critical success 

factors of major IT acquisitions. To 

prepare this statement, GAO drew on 

previously published work.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made numerous 

recommendations to OMB and 

agencies on key aspects of IT 

acquisition management, as well as 

the oversight and management of 

those investments.

What GAO Found

Information technology (IT) acquisition best practices have been developed by 

both industry and the federal government. For example, the Software 

Engineering Institute has developed highly regarded and widely used guidance 

on best practices, such as requirements development and management, risk 

management, validation and verification, and project monitoring and control. 

GAO’s own research in IT management best practices led to the development of 

the Information Technology Investment Management Framework, which 

describes essential and complementary IT investment management disciplines, 

such as oversight of system development and acquisition management, and 

organizes them into a set of critical processes for successful investments. 

GAO also recently reported on the critical factors underlying successful IT 

acquisitions. Officials from federal agencies identified seven investments that 

were deemed successfully acquired in that they best achieved their respective 

cost, schedule, scope, and performance goals. Agency officials identified nine 

common factors that were critical to the success of three or more of the seven 

investments.

Common Critical Success Factors and Number of Agencies Reporting

Critical success factor 

Number of 

investments 

reporting

Program officials were actively engaged with stakeholders 7

Program staff had the necessary knowledge and skills 6

Senior department and agency executives supported the programs 6

End users and stakeholders were involved in the development of requirements 5 

End users participated in testing of system functionality prior to formal end user 

acceptance testing 5

Government and contractor staff were consistent and stable 4 

Program staff prioritized requirements 4 

Program officials maintained regular communication with the prime contractor 4

Programs received sufficient funding 3

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Officials from all seven investments cited active engagement with program 

stakeholders as a critical factor to the success of those investments. Agency 

officials stated that stakeholders regularly attended program management office 

sponsored meetings; were working members of integrated project teams; and 

were notified of problems and concerns as soon as possible.

Additionally, officials from six investments indicated that knowledge and skills of 

the program staff, and support from senior department and agency executives 

were critical to the success of their programs. Further, officials from five of the 

seven selected investments identified having the end users test and validate the 

system components prior to formal acceptance testing for deployment as critical 

to the success of their program. These critical factors support the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) objective of improving the management of 

large-scale IT acquisitions across the federal government; wide dissemination of 

these factors could complement OMB’s efforts.

View GAO-14-183T. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
 

Page 1 GAO-14-183T 

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of key aspects of 

the federal government’s acquisition of information technology (IT) 

investments. As reported to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), federal agencies plan to spend at least $82 billion on IT in fiscal 

year 2014. Given the size of these investments and the criticality of many 

of these systems to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is 

important that federal agencies successfully acquire these systems—that 

is, ensure that the systems are acquired on time and within budget, and 

that they deliver the expected benefits and functionality.

However, as we have previously reported and testified, federal IT projects 

too frequently incur cost overruns and schedule slippages while 

contributing little to mission-related outcomes.1 During the past several 

years, we have issued multiple reports and testimonies on federal 

initiatives to acquire and improve the management of IT investments.2 In 

those reports, we made numerous recommendations to federal agencies 

and OMB to further enhance the management and oversight of IT 

programs.

 

1

See, for example, GAO, Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to More 

Effectively Implement Major Initiatives to Save Billions of Dollars, GAO-13-796T, 

(Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2013); Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its 

Proposed Investment in Key Technology Program, GAO-10-340 (Washington, D.C.: May 

5, 2010); and Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: With Costs Increasing and Data 

Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in Tri-agency Decision Making, GAO-09-564

(Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2009).

2

See, for example, GAO, Information Technology: Additional Executive Review Sessions 

Needed to Address Troubled Projects, GAO-13-524 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2013); 

Data Center Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Billions of Dollars 

in Savings, GAO-13-627T (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2013); Data Center Consolidation: 

Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings Goal, GAO-13-378

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2013); Information Technology Dashboard: Opportunities 

Exist to Improve Transparency and Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, 

GAO-13-98 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2012); Data Center Consolidation: Agencies 

Making Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed, 

GAO-12-742 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012); Information Technology: Continued 

Attention Needed to Accurately Report Federal Spending and Improve Management, 

GAO-11-831T (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2011); and Information Technology: Investment 

Oversight and Management Have Improved but Continued Attention Is Needed, 

GAO-11-454T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-183T 

As part of its response to our prior work, OMB deployed a public website 

in 2009, known as the IT Dashboard, which provides detailed information 

on federal agencies’ major IT investments,3 including assessments of 

actual performance against cost and schedule targets (referred to as 

ratings) for approximately 700 major federal IT investments. In addition, 

OMB has initiated other significant efforts following the creation of the 

Dashboard. For example, OMB began leading reviews—known as 

TechStat Accountability Sessions (TechStats)—of selected IT 

investments to increase accountability and improve performance. Further, 

in 2011 we reported on the critical factors underlying successful federal 

major IT acquisitions.4 In that report, we identified seven successful 

investment acquisitions and nine common factors critical to their success.

As discussed with committee staff, I am testifying today on IT acquisition 

best practices, with a focus on the results of our report on the critical 

success factors of major IT acquisitions.5 Accordingly, my testimony 

specifically focuses on those success factors and their importance to 

improving IT investment oversight and management. I will also address 

several initiatives put into place by OMB to address the transparency of IT 

investments and to review troubled projects. All work on which this 

testimony is based was performed in accordance with all sections of 

GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant to our objectives. 

The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives 

and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information 

and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable 

basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. A more detailed 

 

3

According to OMB guidance, a major IT Investment is a system or an acquisition 

requiring special management attention because it: has significant importance to the 

mission or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or another organization; is 

for financial management and obligates more than $500,000 annually; has significant 

program or policy implications; has high executive visibility; has high development, 

operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct appropriations; or is 

defined as major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process.

4

GAO, Information Technology: Critical Factors Underlying Successful Major Acquisitions, 

GAO-12-7 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2011). 

5

GAO-12-7. 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-183T 

discussion of the objectives, scope, and methodology of this work is 

included in each of the reports on which this testimony is based.6

Information technology should enable government to better serve the 

American people. However, according to OMB, despite spending more 

than $600 billion on IT over the past decade, the federal government has 

achieved little of the productivity improvements that private industry has 

realized from IT.7 Too often, federal IT projects run over budget, behind 

schedule, or fail to deliver promised functionality. In combating this 

problem, proper oversight is critical.

Both OMB and federal agencies have key roles and responsibilities for 

overseeing IT investment management and OMB is responsible for 

working with agencies to ensure investments are appropriately planned 

and justified. However, as we have described in numerous reports,8

although a variety of best practice documentation exists to guide their 

successful acquisition, federal IT projects too frequently incur cost 

overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to missionrelated outcomes.

 

6

GAO-13-524; GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to Be 

Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-461 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

26, 2012); IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional Efforts Are Under Way 

to Better Inform Decision Making, GAO-12-210 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2011); 

GAO-12-7; Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, but 

Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); and Information Technology: OMB’s Dashboard has 

Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, GAO-10-701

(Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2010).

7

OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010).

8

See, for example, GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National 

Flood Insurance Program, GAO-11-297 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011); GAO-10-340; 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance Limitations 

That Place Key Technology Program at Risk, GAO-10-158 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 

2010); and GAO-09-564. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-183T 

IT acquisition best practices have been developed by both industry and 

the federal government. For example, the Software Engineering Institute9

has developed highly regarded and widely used guidance10 on best

practices, such as requirements development and management, risk 

management, configuration management, validation and verification, and 

project monitoring and control. This guidance also describes disciplined 

project management practices that call for the development of project 

details, such as objectives, scope of work, schedules, costs, and 

requirements against which projects can be managed and executed. In 

the federal government, GAO’s own research in IT management best 

practices led to the development of the Information Technology 

Investment Management Framework,11 which describes essential and 

complementary IT investment management disciplines, such as oversight 

of system development and acquisition management, and organizes them 

into a set of critical processes for successful investments. This guidance 

further describes five progressive stages of maturity that an agency can 

achieve in its investment management capabilities, and was developed 

on the basis of our research into the IT investment management practices 

of leading private- and public-sector organizations. GAO has also 

identified opportunities to improve the role played by Chief Information 

Officers (CIO) in IT management.12 In noting that federal law provides 

CIOs with adequate authority to manage IT for their agencies, GAO also 

reported on limitations that impeded their ability to exercise this authority. 

Specifically, CIOs have not always had sufficient control over IT 

investments; more consistent implementation of CIOs’ authority could 

enhance their effectiveness.

 

9

The Software Engineering Institute is a federally funded research and development 

center operated by Carnegie Mellon University. Its mission is to advance software 

engineering and related disciplines to ensure the development and operation of systems 

with predictable and improved cost, schedule, and quality.

10See, for example, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity 

Model® Integration for Development (CMMI-DEV), Version 1.3 (November 2010); and 

Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for 

Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.3 (November 2010). 

11GAO, Executive Guide: Information Technology Investment Management, A Framework 

for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 

2004).

12GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in 

Information Technology Management, GAO-11-634 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011).

IT Acquisition Best 

Practices Have Been 

Identified by Industry and 

Government and Promoted 

by Legislation
 

Page 5 GAO-14-183T 

Congress has also enacted legislation that reflects IT management best 

practices. For example, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which was 

informed by GAO best practice recommendations,13 requires federal 

agencies to focus more on the results they have achieved through IT 

investments, while concurrently improving their IT acquisition processes. 

Specifically, the act requires agency heads to implement a process to 

maximize the value of the agency’s IT investments and assess, manage, 

and evaluate the risks of its IT acquisitions.14 Further, the act establishes 

CIOs to advise and assist agency heads in carrying out these 

responsibilities.15 The act also requires OMB to encourage agencies to 

develop and use best practices in IT acquisition.16

Additionally, the E-Government Act of 2002 established a CIO Council, 

which is led by the Federal CIO, to be the principal interagency forum for 

improving agency practices related to the development, acquisition, and 

management of information resources, including sharing best practices.17

Although these best practices and legislation can have a positive impact 

on major IT programs, we have previously testified that the federal 

government continues to invest in numerous failed and troubled 

projects.18 We stated that while OMB’s and agencies’ recent efforts had 

resulted in greater transparency and oversight of federal spending, 

continued leadership and attention was necessary to build on the 

progress that had been made.

 

13GAO, Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information 

Management and Technology: Learning from Leading Organizations, GAO/AIMD-94-115

(Washington, D.C.: May 1994). See also, GAO, Executive Guide: Measuring Performance 

and Demonstrating Results of Information Technology Investments, GAO/AIMD-98-89

(Washington, D.C.: March 1998); and Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve 

Performance and Produce Results, GAO/T-AIMD-97-38 (Washington, D.C.: January 

1997). 

1440 U.S.C. § 11312.

1540 U.S.C. § 11315 and 44 U.S.C. 3506(a)(2)(A). 

1640 U.S.C. § 11302(f).

1744 U.S.C. § 3603. The Federal CIO is the presidential designation for the Administrator 

of the OMB Office of E-Government, which was also established by the E-Government 

Act. 44 U.S.C. § 3602.

18GAO-13-796T. 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-183T 

In an effort to end the recurring cycle of failed IT projects, this committee 

has introduced legislation to improve IT acquisition management.19

Among other things, this legislation would

• increase the authority of agency CIOs,

• eliminate duplication and waste in IT acquisition, and

• strengthen and streamline IT acquisition management practices.

We have previously testified in support of this legislation.20

OMB plays a key role in helping federal agencies manage their 

investments by working with them to better plan, justify, and determine 

how much they need to spend on projects and how to manage approved 

projects.

In June 2009, OMB established the IT Dashboard to improve the 

transparency into and oversight of agencies’ IT investments. According to 

OMB officials, agency CIOs are required to update each major investment 

in the IT Dashboard with a rating based on the CIO’s evaluation of certain 

aspects of the investment, such as risk management, requirements 

management, contractor oversight, and human capital. According to 

OMB, these data are intended to provide a near real-time perspective of 

the performance of these investments, as well as a historical perspective. 

Further, the public display of these data is intended to allow OMB, 

congressional and other oversight bodies, and the general public to hold 

government agencies accountable for results and progress.

In January 2010, the Federal CIO began leading TechStat sessions—

reviews of selected IT investments between OMB and agency 

leadership—to increase accountability and transparency and improve 

performance. OMB has identified factors that may result in an investment 

being selected for a TechStat session, such as—but not limited to—

 

19The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, introduced as H.R. 1232 

(Mar. 18, 2013), passed by the House on June 14, 2013, as Div. E, H.R. 1960, National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

20GAO-13-796T and Data Centers and The Cloud, Part II: The Federal Government’s 

Take on Optimizing New Information Technologies Opportunities to Save Taxpayers 

Money, Before the H.R. Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 113th Cong. 10-12 (2013) (statement of U.S. 

Government Accountability Office Director of Information Technology Management Issues 

David A. Powner).

OMB Has Several 

Initiatives Under Way to 

Improve the Oversight and 

Management of IT 

Investments 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-183T 

evidence of (1) poor performance; (2) duplication with other systems or 

projects; (3) unmitigated risks; and (4) misalignment with policies and 

best practices.

OMB reported that as of April 2013, 79 TechStat sessions had been held 

with federal agencies. According to OMB, these sessions enabled the 

government to improve or terminate IT investments that were 

experiencing performance problems. For example, in June 2010 the 

Federal CIO led a TechStat on the National Archives and Records 

Administration’s (NARA) Electronic Records Archives investment that 

resulted in six corrective actions, including halting fiscal year 2012 

development funding pending the completion of a strategic plan. Similarly, 

in January 2011, we reported that NARA had not been positioned to 

identify potential cost and schedule problems early, and had not been 

able to take timely actions to correct problems, delays, and cost increases 

on this system acquisition program.21 Moreover, we estimated that the 

program would likely overrun costs by between $205 and $405 million if 

the agency completed the program as originally designed. We made 

multiple recommendations to the Archivist of the United States, including 

establishing a comprehensive plan for all remaining work, improving the

accuracy of key performance reports, and engaging executive leadership 

in correcting negative performance trends.

Drawing on the visibility into federal IT investments provided by the IT 

Dashboard and TechStat sessions, in December 2010, OMB issued a 

plan to reform IT management throughout the federal government over an 

18-month time frame.22 Among other things, the plan noted the goal of 

turning around or terminating at least one-third of underperforming 

projects by June 2012. The plan contained two high-level objectives:

• achieving operational efficiency, and

 

21GAO, Electronic Records Archive: National Archives Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity 

to Use Earned Value Techniques to Manage and Oversee Development, GAO-11-86

(Washington, D.C.: Jan.13, 2011).

22OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management (Washington, D.C.: December 2010).
 

Page 8 GAO-14-183T 

• effectively managing large-scale IT programs.23

To achieve operational efficiencies, the plan outlined actions required to 

adopt cloud solutions and leverage shared services. To effectively 

manage IT acquisitions, the plan identified key actions, such as improving 

accountability and governance and aligning acquisition processes with 

the technology cycle. Our April 2012 report24 on the federal government’s 

progress on implementing the plan found that not all action items had 

been completed. These findings are discussed in greater detail later in 

the next section.

We have previously reported that OMB has taken significant steps to 

enhance the oversight, transparency, and accountability of federal IT 

investments by creating its IT Dashboard, by improving the accuracy of 

investment ratings, and by creating a plan to reform federal IT. However, 

we also found issues with the accuracy and data reliability of cost and 

schedule data, and recommended steps that OMB should take to improve 

these data.

• In July 2010, we reported25 that the cost and schedule ratings on 

OMB’s Dashboard were not always accurate for the investments we 

reviewed, because these ratings did not take into consideration 

current performance. As a result, the ratings were based on outdated 

information. We recommended that OMB report on its planned 

changes to the Dashboard to improve the accuracy of performance 

information and provide guidance to agencies to standardize 

milestone reporting. OMB agreed with our recommendations and, as 

a result, updated the Dashboard’s cost and schedule calculations to 

include both ongoing and completed activities.

 

23The plan also outlined five subordinate goals. The high-level objective of achieving 

operational efficiency aligns with the goal of applying light technology and shared 

solutions (e.g., cloud computing, shared services across the government, and 

consolidation of multiple organizations’ data centers). The high-level objective of 

effectively managing large-scale IT programs aligns with the other four goals: 

strengthening program management; aligning the budget process with the technology 

cycle; streamlining governance and improving accountability; and increasing engagement 

with industry.

24GAO-12-461. 

25GAO-10-701. 

Prior GAO Work Has 

Reported on OMB’s IT 

Investment Oversight and 

Management
 

Page 9 GAO-14-183T 

• Similarly, our report in March 201126 noted that OMB had initiated 

several efforts to increase the Dashboard’s value as an oversight tool 

and had used its data to improve federal IT management. However, 

we also reported that agency practices and the Dashboard’s 

calculations contributed to inaccuracies in the reported investment 

performance data. For instance, we found missing data submissions 

or erroneous data at each of the five agencies we reviewed, along 

with instances of inconsistent program baselines and unreliable 

source data. As a result, we recommended that the agencies take 

steps to improve the accuracy and reliability of their Dashboard 

information, and that OMB improve how it rates investments relative 

to current performance and schedule variance. Most agencies 

generally concurred with our recommendations and three have taken 

steps to address them. OMB agreed with our recommendation for 

improving ratings for schedule variance. It disagreed with our 

recommendation to improve how it reflects current performance in 

cost and schedule ratings, but more recently made changes to 

Dashboard calculations to address this while also noting challenges in 

comprehensively evaluating cost and schedule data for these 

investments.

• Subsequently, in November 2011, we noted27 that the accuracy of 

investment cost and schedule ratings had improved since our July 

2010 report because OMB refined the Dashboard’s cost and schedule 

calculations. Most of the ratings for the eight investments we reviewed 

as part of our November 2011 report were accurate, although we 

noted that more could be done to inform oversight and decision 

making by emphasizing recent performance in the ratings. We 

recommended that the General Services Administration comply with 

OMB’s guidance for updating its ratings when new information 

becomes available (including when investments are rebaselined). The 

agency concurred and has since taken actions to address this 

recommendation. Since we previously recommended that OMB 

improve how it rates investments, we did not make any further 

recommendations.

 

26GAO-11-262. 

27GAO-12-210. 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-183T 

• Further, in April 2012, we reported28 that OMB and key federal 

agencies had made progress on implementing actions items from its 

plan to reform IT management, but found that there were several 

areas where more remained to be done. Specifically, we reviewed 10 

actions and found that 3 were complete, while 7 were incomplete. For 

example, we found that OMB had reformed and strengthened 

investment review boards, but had only partially issued guidance on 

modular development. Accordingly, we recommended, among other 

things, that OMB ensure that the action items called for in the plan be 

completed by the responsible parties prior to the completion of the 

plan’s 18-month deadline of June 2012, or if the June 2012 deadline 

could not be met, by another clearly defined deadline. OMB agreed to 

complete the key action items.

• Finally, we reviewed OMB’s efforts to help agencies address IT 

projects with cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance 

shortfalls in June 2013.29 In particular, we reported that OMB used 

CIO ratings from the Dashboard, among other sources, to select atrisk investments for reviews known as TechStats.30 OMB initiated 

these reviews in January 2010 to further improve investment 

performance, and subsequently incorporated the TechStat model into 

its plan for reforming IT management. We reported that OMB and 

selected agencies had held multiple TechStat sessions but additional 

OMB oversight was needed to ensure that these meetings were 

having the appropriate impact on underperforming projects and that 

resulting cost savings were valid. Among other things, we 

recommended that OMB require agencies to address their highestrisk investments and to report on how they validated the outcomes. 

OMB generally agreed with our recommendations, and stated that it 

and the agencies were taking appropriate steps to address them.

 

28GAO-12-461. 

29GAO-13-524. 

30TechStat sessions are face-to-face meetings to terminate, halt, or turnaround IT 

investments that are failing or are not producing results. 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-183T 

Subsequent to the launch of the Dashboard and the TechStat reviews, 

and to help the federal agencies address the well-documented acquisition 

challenges they face, in 2011,31 we reported on nine common factors 

critical to the success of IT investment acquisitions. Specifically, we 

reported that department officials from seven agencies each identified a 

successful investment acquisition, in that they best achieved their 

respective cost, schedule, scope, and performance goals. To identify 

these investments, we interviewed officials from the 10 departments with 

the largest planned IT budgets in order for each department to identify 

one mission-critical, major IT investment that best achieved its cost, 

schedule, scope, and performance goals. Of the 10 departments, 7 

identified successful IT investments, for a total of 7 investments.32

Officials from the 7 investments cited a number of success factors that 

contributed to these investments’ success. 

According to federal department officials, the following seven investments 

(shown in table 1) best achieved their respective cost, schedule, scope, 

and performance goals. The estimated total life-cycle cost of the seven 

investments is about $5 billion.

 

31GAO-12-7. 

32The three departments that were unable to identify an IT investment that met the criteria 

for this engagement were the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, 

and Justice. The Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services each 

identified systems that they stated met our criteria; however, we did not agree that the 

systems selected were mission-critical. Justice stated that it had identified an investment 

that met our criteria; however, it was unable to locate key documentation and evidence 

needed for our review.

Critical Factors 

Underlying Successful 

Major Acquisitions
 

Page 12 GAO-14-183T 

Table 1: IT Investments Identified as Successful by Federal Departments

Dollars in millions

Department Managing agency Investment

Total estimated 

life-cycle costs

Commerce Census Bureau Decennial Response 

Integration System 

$1,050.0 

Defense Defense Information 

Systems Agency 

Global Combat Support 

System–Joint Increment 

7 

$249.9 

Energy National Nuclear 

Security 

Administration

Manufacturing 

Operations 

Management Project 

$41.3

Homeland 

Security 

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

Western Hemisphere 

Travel Initiative 

$2,000.0

Transportation Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Integrated Terminal 

Weather System 

$472.5

Treasury Internal Revenue 

Service 

Customer Account Data 

Engine 2

$1,300.0

(Transition States

1 and 2)

Veterans Affairs Veterans Health 

Administration 

Occupational Health 

Record-keeping System

$34.4

Source: Agency data.

Among these seven IT investments, officials identified nine factors as 

critical to the success of three or more of the seven. The factors most 

commonly identified include active engagement of stakeholders, program 

staff with the necessary knowledge and skills, and senior department and 

agency executive support for the program. These nine critical success 

factors are consistent with leading industry practices for IT acquisitions. 

Table 2 shows how many of the investments reported the nine factors 

and selected examples of how agencies implemented them are discussed 

below. A more detailed discussion of the investments’ identification of 

success factors can be found in our 2011 report.33

 

33GAO-12-7. 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-183T 

Table 2: Number of Selected Investments Identifying Critical Success Factors 

Critical success factor 

Number of 

investments 

reporting

Program officials were actively engaged with stakeholders 7 

Program staff had the necessary knowledge and skills 6 

Senior department and agency executives supported the programs 6 

End users and stakeholders were involved in the development of 

requirements 5 

End users participated in testing of system functionality prior to formal 

end user acceptance testing 5 

Government and contractor staff were consistent and stable 4 

Program staff prioritized requirements 4 

Program officials maintained regular communication with the prime 

contractor 4 

Programs received sufficient funding 3 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Officials from all seven selected investments cited active engagement 

with program stakeholders—individuals or groups (including, in some 

cases, end users) with an interest in the success of the acquisition—as a 

critical factor to the success of those investments. Agency officials stated 

that stakeholders, among other things, reviewed contractor proposals 

during the procurement process, regularly attended program 

management office sponsored meetings, were working members of 

integrated project teams,34 and were notified of problems and concerns as 

soon as possible. In addition, officials from the two investments at 

National Nuclear Security Administration and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection noted that actively engaging with stakeholders created 

transparency and trust, and increased the support from the stakeholders.

Additionally, officials from six of the seven selected investments indicated 

that the knowledge and skills of the program staff were critical to the 

success of the program. This included knowledge of acquisitions and 

 

34OMB defines an integrated project team as a multi-disciplinary team led by a project 

manager responsible and accountable for planning, budgeting, procurement, and life-cycle 

management of the investment to achieve its cost, schedule, and performance goals. 

Team skills include budgetary, financial, capital planning, procurement, user, program, 

architecture, earned value management, security, and other staff as appropriate. 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-183T 

procurement processes, monitoring of contracts, large-scale 

organizational transformation, Agile software development concepts,35

and areas of program management such as earned value management 

and technical monitoring.

Finally, officials from five of the seven selected investments identified 

having the end users test and validate the system components prior to 

formal end user acceptance testing for deployment as critical to the 

success of their program. Similar to this factor, leading guidance 

recommends testing selected products and product components 

throughout the program life cycle.36 Testing of functionality by end users 

prior to acceptance demonstrates, earlier rather than later in the program 

life cycle, that the functionality will fulfill its intended use. If problems are 

found during this testing, programs are typically positioned to make 

changes that are less costly and disruptive than ones made later in the 

life cycle would be.

In summary, the expanded use of these critical IT acquisition success 

factors, in conjunction with industry and government best practices, 

should result in the more effective delivery of mission-critical systems. 

Further, these factors support OMB’s objective of improving the 

management of large-scale IT acquisitions across the federal 

government, and wide dissemination of these factors could complement 

OMB’s efforts. While OMB’s and agencies’ recent efforts have resulted in 

greater transparency and oversight of federal spending, continued 

leadership and attention are necessary to build on the progress that has 

been made. By improving the accuracy of information on the IT 

Dashboard, and holding additional TechStat reviews, management 

attention can be better focused on troubled projects and establishing 

clear action items to turn these projects around or terminate them. 

Further, legislation such as that proposed by this committee can play an 

important role in increasing the authority of agency CIOs and improving 

 

35Agile software development is not a set of tools or a single methodology, but a 

philosophy based on selected values, such as prioritizing customer satisfaction through 

early and continuous delivery of valuable software; delivering working software frequently, 

from every couple of weeks to every couple of months; and making working software the 

primary measure of progress. For more information on Agile software development, see 

http://www.agilealliance.org. 

36See, for example, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity 

Model® Integration for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.3 (November 2010).
 

Page 15 GAO-14-183T 

federal IT acquisition management practices. Overall, the implementation 

of our numerous recommendations regarding key aspects of IT 

acquisition management can help OMB and federal agencies continue to 

improve the efficiency and transparency with which IT investments are 

managed, in order to ensure that the federal government’s substantial 

investment in IT is being wisely spent.

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who 

made key contributions to this testimony are Dave Hinchman (Assistant 

Director), Deborah Davis, Rebecca Eyler, Kaelin Kuhn, Thomas Murphy, 

Jamelyn Payan, and Jessica Waselkow. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311295)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.